[Mageia-dev] Changing default media names

Sun Nov 20 23:48:26 CET 2011

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011, Maarten Vanraes wrote:
+
+> Op zondag 20 november 2011 22:36:06 schreef nicolas vigier:
+> > On Sun, 20 Nov 2011, Samuel Verschelde wrote:
+> > > I'm not sure about it. I see the benefits, but to me there is a major
+> > > drawback: they are not user-friendly :
+> > > - current names are readable, new ones aren't, they're just technical
+> > 
+> > Adding capitals and replacing / with spaces does not make the name more
+> > user-friendly. If we want to be friendly with users, we should not
+> > confuse them by calling the same thing with different names all the time.
+> > The naming scheme for medias that is used almost everywhere including
+> > on mirrors is i586/core/release, not Core 32bit Release.
+> > 
+> > > - current naming scheme doesn't bother you with arch information, except
+> > > on 64 bits system and only for 32 bits media
+> > 
+> > That's the problem. Sometimes the arch is included, sometimes it is not.
+> > And sometimes two names can refer to different things (Core Release is
+> > not the same thing on x86_64 and i586 installs), or two different names
+> > can refer to the same thing (Core Release on i586 is the same as Core
+> > 32bit Release on x86_64 installs).
+> > 
+> > And 32bit is not more user-friendly than i586. Sources is not more
+> > user-friendly than SRPMS. We should call the same thing with the same
+> > name all the time.
+> [...]
+> 
+> I disagree with you here, I'm all for consistent media names that are easy to 
+> complete, but "Core Release Source" is more userfriendly than 
+> "SRPMS/core/release" . i'm pretty sure my dad would get even more lost than he 
+> is right now.
+
+For someone who doesn't know anything about our media policy, both names
+are equaly meaningless. If we want them to understand something, what is
+needed is a description text of the medias.
+
+> 
+> imho "Cauldron Core Release (source)" is more userfriendly than 
+> "cauldron/SRPM/core/release". at least to people who don't even know what a 
+> path is.
+> 
+> it's acceptable for me to:
+>  - no caps
+>  - better ordering
+>  - consistent arch adding
+> 
+> but using pathnames, albeit the best consistency, is not good.
+
+Why ?
+
+> 
+> imho we should be able in cli to use a unique identifier, but it doesn't have 
+> to be the name as seen.
+> 
+> if we can use urpm* commands with the path name as identifier, that's ok for me 
+> too.
+
+Having multiple unique identifiers for each media is not what I would
+call user-friendly. We already have the name as unique identifier, there
+is no need to add an other one.
+
+